State v. Black

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Black

294 A.2d 440, 1972 Me. LEXIS 320

DecidedAugust 30, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 294 A.2d 440 (State v. Black) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Black, 294 A.2d 440, 1972 Me. LEXIS 320 (Me. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was indicted on two charges of breaking, entering and larceny, each charge being presented in a separate indictment. A plea of “not guilty” was tendered and pending trial appellant’s counsel filed motions to suppress evidence obtained under a search warrant. These motions were denied. Thereafter appellant changed his plea to “guilty” in each case in the course of a proceeding meeting the requirements of M.R.Crim.P., Rule 11. Appellant then received concurrent sentences and appealed the judgment.

We are perplexed by the posture in which this case reaches us. Both appellant and appellee address themselves to arguments with respect to the merits of the denial of the motions to suppress. This issue was not open, once the appellant had pleaded guilty. All factual matters well pleaded by the indictments were admitted by plea.

The matter being jurisdictional, we have examined the two indictments and find them legally sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court which rendered judgment.

This appeal presents no issues for our consideration. If appellant has been in any way aggrieved by what has transpired, his remedy, if any there be, is by post-conviction relief.

Appeal denied.

All Justices concurring.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was indicted on two charges of breaking, entering and larceny, each charge being presented in a separate indictment. A plea of “not guilty” was tendered and pending trial appellant’s counsel filed motions to suppress evidence obtained under a search warrant. These motions were denied. Thereafter appellant changed his plea to “guilty” in each case in the course of a proceeding meeting the requirements of M.R.Crim.P., Rule 11. Appellant then received concurrent sentences and appealed the judgment.

We are perplexed by the posture in which this case reaches us. Both appellant and appellee address themselves to arguments with respect to the merits of the denial of the motions to suppress. This issue was not open, once the appellant had pleaded guilty. All factual matters well pleaded by the indictments were admitted by plea.

The matter being jurisdictional, we have examined the two indictments and find them legally sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court which rendered judgment.

This appeal presents no issues for our consideration. If appellant has been in any way aggrieved by what has transpired, his remedy, if any there be, is by post-conviction relief.

Appeal denied.

All Justices concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.2d 440, 1972 Me. LEXIS 320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-black-me-1972.